Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33619178›Full record

Trial reportProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2021

Influence of a COVID-19 vaccine's effectiveness and safety profile on vaccination acceptance.

Robert M Kaplan, Arnold Milstein

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 123 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
123citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

123 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

63 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Robert M KaplanClinical Excellence Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305 bob.kaplan@stanford.edu.
Arnold MilsteinClinical Excellence Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305.ORCID 0000-0002-2794-2378

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although a safe and effective vaccine holds the greatest promise for resolving the COVID-19 pandemic, hesitancy to accept vaccines remains common. To explore vaccine acceptance decisions, we conducted a national survey of 1,000 people from all US states in August of 2020 and a replication in December of 2020. Using a 3 × 3 × 3 factorial experimental design, we estimated the impact of three factors: probability of 1) protection against COVID-19, 2) minor side effects, and 3) a serious adverse reactions. The outcome was respondents' reported likelihood of receiving a vaccine for the coronavirus. Probability of vaccine efficacy (50%, 70%, or 90%) had the largest effect among the three factors. The probability of minor side effects (50%, 75%, 90%) including fever and sore arm, did not significantly influence likelihood of receiving the vaccine. The chances of a serious adverse reaction, such as temporary or permanent paralysis, had a small but significant effect. A serious adverse reaction rate of 1/100,000 was more likely to discourage vaccine use in comparison to rates of 1/million or 1/100 million. All interactions between the factors were nonsignificant. A replication following the announcement that vaccines were 95% effective showed small, but significant increases in the likelihood of taking a vaccine. The main effects and interactions in the model remained unchanged. Expected benefit was more influential in respondents' decision making than expected side effects. The absence of interaction effects suggests that respondents consider the side effects and benefits independently.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedCOVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesFemaleHealth SurveysHumansMaleMiddle AgedPoliticsRandom AllocationUnited StatesYoung AdultCOVID-19 Vaccinesconjoint analysisCOVID-19decision analysisvaccine acceptance

Identifiers

PMID33619178
PMCPMC7958192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.